38 replies to this topic

[RavenHawk]

ninjadude, on 03 November 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

No, the point of the Constitution is the provide the framework for government.

And that framework blows the door off the cage of socialism.

[RavenHawk]

Corp, on 03 November 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

Hahahaha...no. It replaced a British monarchy with an American republic. One system of government for another one. A glided cage for a glided cage as you say.

Not exactly.  A Republic prevents enslavement in that gilded cage.  It is still a government but we can freely move in and out of that cage door.  We can’t do that under Socialism or it becomes harder to do.  Socialism is an illusion of freedom.

In India, they train young elephants to not wander off by chaining them up for weeks wrestling with trying to break free until they accept their enslavement.  The trainer can then control the elephant by leaving a chain anklet on its leg.  A gilded cage accomplished the same thing.  Humans are more intelligent than that.

Quote

And as we've discussed in other threads the Constitution had no comment at all about socialism...because socialism as a political viewpoint was brand new and wasn't in practice. If you had asked the Founding Fathers their thoughts on socialism they would have just given you odd looks.

Yes we have.  You haven’t learned then and you haven’t learned now.  If you are expecting the Constitution to specifically comment about Socialism, you’ll never find it.  But what you will also not see is it commenting on Democracy.  Democracy is a form of Socialism.  Yes, the term “Socialism” was new but it was just a new version of the old concept of Oligarchy.  You have to consider the body of work from the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, and even the individual letters of the Founding Fathers to understand that our Republic is the opposite of Socialism.  Granted, most people today don’t understand what a Republic is because we’ve always have lived with Socialism to one degree or another.  It takes courage or even just imagination to step above Socialism to live the way our Founding Fathers intended us to live, free from government infringement.

[preacherman76]

Kazoo, on 02 November 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

We aren't free. We engage in a social contract with our government that strips away some freedom for security purposes. And we all like it this way. I don't kill people. My neighbors should not kill people. The military and police protect us.  Schools let us all live in an educated world. We pay taxes for all these luxuries. They punish those who wrong. This is the foundation of almost all government.

People like you forget how much the government gives you. Those are luxuries. Not requirements.

The problem is when the government does things that limit our freedom and say its for security. And its really just unhealthy paranoia.

Another problem lies when officials treat governments as businesses and see the citizens as customers.

We don't want freedom. You don't want real freedom. You want to sit around at night and smoke pot and play video games. You can. No one is stopping you.  I mean be prepared to deal with the legal repercussions if your smoking illegally. But you can.  

This is more of a rant of social conventions then about the government.

Speak for yourself. Freedom is the only thing I want from the federal government.


The government doesnt give me anything. All they do is take, take and take some more. Then they waste what they take.

[Corp]

RavenHawk, on 03 November 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

Not exactly.  A Republic prevents enslavement in that gilded cage. It is still a government but we can freely move in and out of that cage door.  We can’t do that under Socialism or it becomes harder to do.  Socialism is an illusion of freedom.

In India, they train young elephants to not wander off by chaining them up for weeks wrestling with trying to break free until they accept their enslavement.  The trainer can then control the elephant by leaving a chain anklet on its leg.  A gilded cage accomplished the same thing.  Humans are more intelligent than that.

Every Western government proves that statement to be false. You think that America democracy is freedom but Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Irish, British, and European democracy is slavery? No. Reality proves that this is not the case. Hell with your two party system Americans tend to have less freedom of choice than those "evil" socialist states.

Quote

Yes we have.  You haven’t learned then and you haven’t learned now.  If you are expecting the Constitution to specifically comment about Socialism, you’ll never find it.  But what you will also not see is it commenting on Democracy.  Democracy is a form of Socialism.  Yes, the term “Socialism” was new but it was just a new version of the old concept of Oligarchy.  You have to consider the body of work from the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, and even the individual letters of the Founding Fathers to understand that our Republic is the opposite of Socialism.  Granted, most people today don’t understand what a Republic is because we’ve always have lived with Socialism to one degree or another.  It takes courage or even just imagination to step above Socialism to live the way our Founding Fathers intended us to live, free from government infringement.

And likewise you flatly refuse to see that that your personal definition of socialism is wrong. Just taking a glace outside your own borders would show you this but you refuse to see functioning reality. Socialism does not equal oligarchy. They are two terms are not interchangeable. Yes a country can be an oligarchy and be socialist but so too can a country be an oligarchy and a republic. I mean just looking up the definitions of these words would show you that. What the Founding Fathers were stepping away from was monarchy, not socialism. They didn't give a damn about socialism one way or another. They just didn't want a foreign king telling them what to do, though they did toy with having an American king for a while. Repeating the myth you've creating will not make it true.

Hell the argument could be made that the Founding Fathers set up an oligarchy. After all only rich, white, protestant males had any real hope of holding any kind of power. The poor were too busy working, women were too busy in the kitchen, other religions couldn't be trusted, blacks were slaves, and the Natives were busy with the whole genocide thing. The first five presidents were all Founding Fathers. So you had a small group of people running the government, which fits in with the definition of oligarchy.

[Babe Ruth]

For the most part, we are free.  We can come and go as we please.  We can do as we please.

We can eat and smoke as we please, but we may be in violation of the law as we do so.

We can possess photos and other things as we please, but we may be in violation of the law by doing so.

We can associate with whom we please, and we can say as we please, but we may be in violation of the law by doing so.

So, are we humans, or are we dancers?

Are we free, or just in violation of some illegitimate law?

[Jeremiah65]

ouija ouija, on 02 November 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

I looked at your profile to see if you had put your age there. I was astonished to see that you are 47. 47 and you still don't know why using up rare wood/trees and supporting the porn industry are not good ideas?

What are your thoughts on encroaching upon other peoples' freedom if it gets in the way of your freedom?

I was making an extreme point.  Somewhat rhetorical and sarcastic at the same time.  I'm not actually interested in those specific things, but I was illustrating the difference between real freedom and an illusory freedom that is imposed upon by others who believe their freedom is more important than yours....and yet others who are participating in this system and don't even realize it.



I personally believe people should be free to live life on their terms as long as their freedom does not impose upon or restrict the freedoms of another.  Personal responsibility...what a concept.

[RavenHawk]

Kazoo, on 02 November 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

We aren't free.

Only when the government becomes too oppressive.  If you are making that statement, you probably already accept that this government is too oppressive.  To me, I can’t accept that as the new norm.  It’s time for a change.

Quote

We engage in a social contract with our government that strips away some freedom for security purposes.

That’s not exactly true.  Even though the two are usually wrapped up together, there is a difference between the Law and the Military.  The government Establishes Justice and it Provides for the Common Defense.  In-between is Insuring the Domestic Tranquility.  If our government is operating properly, it doesn’t exchange freedom for security.  Things like the Patriot Act don’t strip freedoms.  The government’s primary function is not to infringe on our Rights (or to protect our Rights).  That is why the Bill of Rights is there.  But the other half of Rights is Responsibility, personal Responsibility.  The two work hand-in-hand.  This is why we have the inalienable Rights to do whatever we damn well please, but it is our Responsibility that governs (not the government) to what extent we carry that out.  It is your Responsibility that keeps you from killing your neighbor.  But when you exceed your Rights and renege on your Responsibilities, you then transgress the Law.  If you are arrested under the Patriot Act, it is probably because you have reneged on your Responsibilities of not cohorting with terrorists.  Oh, there could be errors but really very few.  You see, Socialism has mingled in our Republic for so long now, that we can only consider such errors as the new norm of a police state.  We have the totalitarian in our common experience to compare that to.  That’s not how a Republic works.  We have nothing else in our lives to compare it to (we’re it).  “Where there is greatness, great government or power, even great feeling or compassion, error also is great. We progress and mature by fault.”  This is not the striping of our freedoms for security, it is just the outcome of an imperfect system.

What you have to look at is the difference between say, traffic laws and Obamacare.  The government *imposing* traffic laws isn’t infringement.  It’s common sense guidelines to insure everyone is safe.  During hard times, these laws don’t change because of budget problems.  The bottom line of traffic laws is not money.  With Obamacare, you give up the Rights to your own body and put it into the hands of the government that can dictate to you how you take care of your body because it controls the money and in hard times, you are subject to recessions, which means rationing.  Since WWII we have already had some 12 recessions.  Have we not learned that this is the reason that a government should not get into the business of Entitlements?!

Obamacare has finally arrived at my work.  Open enrollment is just around the corner and I just received information packets on our new healthcare benefits.  At a glance, it appears that we have two choices.  One increases our individual deductible to $1000 (I rarely spend that much on healthcare – so I’m already screwed).  And it forces you to establish a $500 health savings account (HSA) coming from your pre tax income but it also allows the usual flexible spending account (FSA).  Why I don’t know, just more government bureaucracy.  The other choice is if you don’t want the HSA and just use the FSA, then your deductible jumps to $3000.  At those costs, it’s cheaper for me to go without and pay the tax fine.  I definitely feel more manipulated than with the old insurance company.  I can’t wait for 2014.  There are going to be tons of class action suits against the government on Obamacare violating the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

Quote

And we all like it this way.

We do?  You sell your soul and your freedom too easily.  You (and others) are so concerned about how the NDAA strips our freedom, but you don’t see how much more is being taken away with Entitlements.

Quote

I don't kill people.  My neighbors should not kill people. The military and police protect us.  Schools let us all live in an educated world. We pay taxes for all these luxuries. They punish those who wrong.

This is the foundation of almost all government.

Yes that is the foundation (more or less) of all governments.  The key is to what degree of control over the people the government has.  At 0% (no government) at one end and 100% on the other.  Socialism (among others) naturally creeps toward the 100%.  The Constitution was designed to prevent that.  Our Constitution is in dire need of the People to come to its rescue from those politicians trying to force Socialism upon us.  I’ll grant you that they may consider it has good intentions, but socialism is deliberate.  There is nothing good about it.

Quote

People like you forget how much the government gives you. Those are luxuries. Not requirements.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”  Sorry, I don’t forget.  I know how government giving things is just another means of enslavement.  Our government should never put itself in the position to take from the People.

Quote

The problem is when the government does things that limit our freedom and say its for security. And its really just unhealthy paranoia.

It’s not for security, try “safety net”.  That’s where most of our freedoms go.

Quote

Another problem lies when officials treat governments as businesses and see the citizens as customers.

That’s incorrect.  It’s when politicians see citizens as children that need to be nannied and they feel that they are the ones to see to it.  This is called Munchausen’s by Proxy.

Quote

We don't want freedom. You don't want real freedom. You want to sit around at night and smoke pot and play video games. You can. No one is stopping you.  I mean be prepared to deal with the legal repercussions if your smoking illegally. But you can.  

Hello!  Yes, he wants real freedom.  But you are already imposing limits to his freedoms.  I’m not a fan of drug use, but what he does in his own home is his business.  Not yours not mine, and not the Government’s.  Now if it affects his work, then that is between him and his employer, not you or the government.  Obamacare is just the beginning to imposing itself into the home to regulate what people do as being healthy or not.  Yes, we have an ever increasing problem with obesity and as the sense of Entitlements increase, so will obesity.  Regulation in the home is not the solution but a change in mindset.  That change can only come by weaning people off of Entitlements.

Quote

This is more of a rant of social conventions then about the government.

And the government has no place in social conventions.

[RavenHawk]

Corp, on 03 November 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

Every Western government proves that statement to be false. You think that America democracy is freedom but Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Irish, British, and European democracy is slavery? No. Reality proves that this is not the case. Hell with your two party system Americans tend to have less freedom of choice than those "evil" socialist states.

Is it outlawed to wear the hijab in France?  What are the gun laws in England?  Do Canadians come to this country for healthcare?  How many governments in the world are made up of multi-party Parliaments that form coalitions and once they do that, they no longer represent the people but the state?  I’ve visited Europe a few times.  The last time was 2006 in Italy.  That year, the Italian people were following the World Cup and the General Election.  Italy won the World Cup and Prodi won the General.  So you could say the Italians were worked up.  Italy (and Europe over all) is a great place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there.  The people were great.  When we went to Germany and England, it was a canned tour type thing.  Italy, we planed by ourselves and we got off the beaten path many times.  We would interact with the common Italian (as best as we could) and we made friends everywhere we went.  We’d sit at a street side trattoria and watch the tour guides walk by holding their brightly colored umbrellas over their heads (so people in the tour would not get lost).  Each tour had its own color of umbrella.  You could tell who the Americans were.  We had a good laugh.  Most Italians thought we were either German or Australian; we just didn’t fit the Ugly American image.  I’m digressing but yes, for the time being, there is more freedom here.  We are slowly losing it, becoming more like Europe.  There has always been and when we show Obama the door, we will always have more freedom that these Socialist Democracies can ever dream.  It’s not a matter of having many choices as it is recognizing what the choices are and their implications.  Choosing is not a popularity contest.  Unfortunately our last Presidential election was based only on that.

Quote

And likewise you flatly refuse to see that that your personal definition of socialism is wrong.

No it’s not.  You just don’t understand what I’m saying.  My personal definition is precisely correct.  As I’ve stated many times, I use Socialism as a generic term because people understand it better than Oligarchy.  It is not the differences between the various flavors; it is the similarity in totalitarianism that concerns me.  The following clip could also be called “Governments 101”.  It is a very simple definition just so that anybody can understand (even you).

Quote

Just taking a glace outside your own borders would show you this but you refuse to see functioning reality.

Where do you think I look?  I’m somewhat a fan of Italian film.  If you want to know the mindset and soul of a nation, watch its films.  Italy seems to have a high number of escapism type movies, very similar to what we had before WWII.  There are surprisingly many very good films.  I see Socialism just dripping off these works.  It’s quaint but it’s not for me.  I’ll go there any time for a visit, but that’s all.

Quote

Socialism does not equal oligarchy. They are two terms are not interchangeable.

You’re just trying to play with terms to divert the focus.  Technically, you could be right but for all practical purposes, they are interchangeable.  And that is what this post is about.

Quote

Yes a country can be an oligarchy and be socialist but so too can a country be an oligarchy and a republic.

No.  That is incorrect.  That has been the point all along.  A Republic cannot be an Oligarchy.  That is the difference between the rule of one man and the rule of law.

Quote

I mean just looking up the definitions of these words would show you that.

And as I said, we could spend some time discussing the academic differences in the terms of the various flavors, but that is not the concern here.  It is how they are all similar.

Quote

What the Founding Fathers were stepping away from was monarchy, not socialism.

They were stepping away from Oligarchy, tyrants, and totalitarian style rule.  Socialism is just Monarchy but with the King removed.

Quote

They didn't give a damn about socialism one way or another. They just didn't want a foreign king telling them what to do, though they did toy with having an American king for a while. Repeating the myth you've creating will not make it true.

They knew about Socialism, they just didn’t call it that.  What myth?  You haven’t even shown it to be a myth.

Quote

Hell the argument could be made that the Founding Fathers set up an oligarchy.

One could make the argument but that would be the myth here.  As was established, an Oligarchy cannot be a Republic.

Quote

After all only rich, white, protestant males had any real hope of holding any kind of power. The poor were too busy working, women were too busy in the kitchen, other religions couldn't be trusted, blacks were slaves, and the Natives were busy with the whole genocide thing. The first five presidents were all Founding Fathers. So you had a small group of people running the government, which fits in with the definition of oligarchy.

Well, again you may be technically correct but at the time, there were only rich white men that were in a position to rule.  Like you said, they were toying around with the idea of setting up a Monarchy but they rejected it.  A Monarchy would perfectly suit such a band of men but they rejected it.  These men were the first in the Age of Enlightenment.  You’re attributing things to them that they were breaking away from.  This was a time where the world still considered certain types of conquered people as subhuman.  Many of the Founding Fathers knew this to be wrong and it took time for that mindset to change.  And because they setup a Republic, that change occurred.  Every race, color, or creed that came to these shores had to struggle to find their niche.  Some had a harder path than others but we all made it under the rule of law, not the rule of man.  No one man or group of men made it for them, they built it for themselves.  Yes, a few men made it possible, they led the way but it wasn’t exclusive to only rich white men.

[questionmark]

RavenHawk, on 05 November 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Do Canadians come to this country for healthcare?

Do 1.6 million Americans seek healthcare abroad?

Doubt you can find that many Canadians doing the same.

[The New Richard Nixon]

If you wish to be free, give lands back ti Native Americans

[RavenHawk]

questionmark, on 05 November 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Do 1.6 million Americans seek healthcare abroad?

Doubt you can find that many Canadians doing the same.

Considering that there are many more Americans, you’d have to use percentages.  But under Obamacare, we’ll probably see that number go up because many treatments that European nations offer may not be allowed or covered under a BHP.  Oh, it is expected to go up 35%.  I didn’t explore further but I wonder what the breakdown between facelifts to by-pass surgery is?  Plus, what is the percentage of wealth Americans going abroad as opposed to the percentage of wealthy Canadians going abroad?

[lightly]

RavenHawk,   Your views make me curious...   i'm wondering what you think about the interstate highway system begun during Eisenhower's administration.  Do you view that as some evil socialistic endeavor ?      What are we to do with PUBLIC funds  if not spend them , socialistically,  for the general welfare and benefit of our society as a whole ?

[Corp]

RavenHawk, on 05 November 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Is it outlawed to wear the hijab in France?  What are the gun laws in England?  Do Canadians come to this country for healthcare?  How many governments in the world are made up of multi-party Parliaments that form coalitions and once they do that, they no longer represent the people but the state?  I've visited Europe a few times.

The US has had no problem restricting freedoms so not sure what point you're trying to make. And while some Canadians go to the US for healthcare it is only under certain circumstances. Canadians are happy with their healthcare system and don't want anything like the US has. To suggest otherwise is political suicide up here. As for the multi-party government the issues with them is that there are too many voices and power is spread too thin. The exact opposite of an oligarchy. And I would have thought that traveling in Europe, seeing that people aren't being crushed under the evils of socialism, would have cured you of your fears. It's fine that you wouldn't want to live there but don't make Western socialism out to be this naturally evil thing when it clearly isn't.

Quote

No it's not.  You just don't understand what I'm saying.  My personal definition is precisely correct.  As I've stated many times, I use Socialism as a generic term because people understand it better than Oligarchy.  It is not the differences between the various flavors; it is the similarity in totalitarianism that concerns me.  The following clip could also be called "Governments 101".  It is a very simple definition just so that anybody can understand (even you).

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Oligarchy: a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

You're using political theories that are the opposite of each other as interchangeable terms. This is wrong and any first year political science student will tell you this. As for the video while it makes some points it's rather simplistic and is actually more focused on driving the point home that the US isn't a democracy. And YouTube...not the best of sources.

Quote

Where do you think I look?  I'm somewhat a fan of Italian film.  If you want to know the mindset and soul of a nation, watch its films.  Italy seems to have a high number of escapism type movies, very similar to what we had before WWII.  There are surprisingly many very good films.  I see Socialism just dripping off these works.  It's quaint but it's not for me.  I'll go there any time for a visit, but that's all.

Fine it's not for you. Doesn't make it evil. Is New Zealand a soul crushing totalitarian hell hole? No? Well I guess social policies aren't so horrible.

Quote

No.  That is incorrect.  That has been the point all along.  A Republic cannot be an Oligarchy.  That is the difference between the rule of one man and the rule of law.

...so Republics are magic? No...just no. Republics just like every other form of government can become an oligarchy. Just look at the Roman Republic, Republic of Venice, and South Africa.

Quote

They were stepping away from Oligarchy, tyrants, and totalitarian style rule.  Socialism is just Monarchy but with the King removed.

...no it is not...at all. Again read the definition of socialism. Please read it. Because I don't think you have.

Quote

They knew about Socialism, they just didn't call it that.  What myth?  You haven't even shown it to be a myth.

Unless you can provide documentation of the Founding Fathers decrying the evils of socialism (again read the definition) than the idea that they were trying to get away from it is a myth. It's just you using revisionist history to try and give basis to your own political views.

Quote

One could make the argument but that would be the myth here.  As was established, an Oligarchy cannot be a Republic.

You have established no such thing. Rome, Venice, South Africa. Historical fact has established an oligarchy can be a republic. Hell swing a dead cat in these forums and you'll hit someone who thinks the current US is an oligarchy.

Quote

Well, again you may be technically correct but at the time, there were only rich white men that were in a position to rule.  Like you said, they were toying around with the idea of setting up a Monarchy but they rejected it.  A Monarchy would perfectly suit such a band of men but they rejected it.  These men were the first in the Age of Enlightenment.  You're attributing things to them that they were breaking away from.  This was a time where the world still considered certain types of conquered people as subhuman.  Many of the Founding Fathers knew this to be wrong and it took time for that mindset to change.  And because they setup a Republic, that change occurred.  Every race, color, or creed that came to these shores had to struggle to find their niche.  Some had a harder path than others but we all made it under the rule of law, not the rule of man.  No one man or group of men made it for them, they built it for themselves.  Yes, a few men made it possible, they led the way but it wasn't exclusive to only rich white men.

The Founding Fathers were among those who viewed current groups as sub-humans. As a group they has no problems with slavery and massacring Natives. They might have been better than many men of that time but they were far from saints who were selflessly trying to better mankind.


I'll just make one last point because I see this going no where. Raven I get that you think socialism is scary. That if the US takes on some socialist policies it'll become a nightmare. Well let me tell you, I'm living your nightmare. And it's not that bad. Better than what's in the US in my view. But I don't think that system is evil. And neither is the socialist system practices throughout the Western world.

Edited by Corp, 06 November 2012 - 12:40 AM.

[MiskatonicGrad]

lightly, on 05 November 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

RavenHawk,   Your views make me curious...   i'm wondering what you think about the interstate highway system begun during Eisenhower's administration.  Do you view that as some evil socialistic endeavor ?   What are we to do with PUBLIC funds  if not spend them , socialistically,  for the general welfare and benefit of our society as a whole ?

imho the goverment shouldn't collect "PUBLIC" funds. what kind of comment is this "We stole this money from you so we can use it to better your life"

that is why we are not free

[karmakazi]

Quote

_{That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.}

_{I think the line in bold says it all.  It's harder to cast off what you know and move into the unknown, than it is to continue dealing with what you know.  It's because of this that Americans have allowed more and more regulations and surveillance to creep into their lives.  Its because of this that most people, anywhere, will stay in a situation (government or otherwise) that isn't ideal and encroaches on their rights and happiness, because it's more difficult to face the unknown.}